Friday, April 29, 2016

Evolution Arguments Are Not Holding Water

Absurd and Pathetic

Being an evolutionist means never having to say you’re sorry. Just look at Richard Dawkins who will say pretty much anything at any time, no matter how much it contradicts science or just plain logic. If he ever gets into trouble he can always lapse back into a rant about those creationist rascals and the audience will automatically erupt with applause. And so arguing evolution with an evolutionist is a lot like the Monty Python argument skit. They will pull out all manner of canards, misdirections, and fallacies, depending on their mood at the moment. One common example is the use of normal science as confirmatory evidence.

As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, science sometimes operates in paradigms. Scientific research on a particular problem can embrace a type of solution, or paradigm. The research tries to elaborate on and refine the paradigm, but otherwise does not question the paradigm. Paradigms provide a stable framework, within which concepts and terminology can be developed to support scientific thinking.

But because the paradigm is taken for granted and assumed from the start, the research conclusions do not generally confirm or prove the paradigm. The research work develops and critically examines concepts within the paradigm, but not the paradigm itself. Kuhn called the research work done with a paradigm normal science.

Evolutionary theory very much works this way. Normal science, within the evolution paradigm, takes it for granted that the world evolved—that everything arose from strictly naturalistic, chance events. That is, that the world arose spontaneously. Therefore in evolutionary research, the evidence is interpreted according to evolution. You could say the evidence is theory-laden.

A typical evolutionary research study goes as follows: Given that X evolved, here is how X probably evolved. All of this is at odds with the empirical evidence, and so the results inevitably lack all kinds of detail normally required in science, and include all kinds of improbable events normally unacceptable in science. It is a kind of storytelling underwritten by the paradigm.

This evolutionary normal science formula has produced a tremendous volume of literature, ranging from journal papers to popular works. And, one of the favorite lines of argumentation, when evolution is rightly questioned, is to point to this “mountain” of evidence. A simple internet search can usually be counted on to produce dozens of papers advertising “The Evolution of Echolocation in Bats” or whatever wonder the skeptic has in mind as problematic for evolution.

Of course, if anyone were ever actually to read the produced papers (and usually the evolutionist presenting the paper has not), that person would find a marked absence of any actual scientific description of how echolocation, or whatever, actually did, in fact, evolve.

Normal science is used inappropriately as confirmatory evidence. When we explained, for example, that epigenetics in plants contradicts evolution, an evolutionist caustically responded with a paper subtitled: “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants.”

And did that paper actually explain “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants”?

No. The paper presupposed “The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants.” As we explained, the paper presents several dubious “findings” of how epigenetics evolved which, in fact, are not supported by the science and instead are completely beholden to the assumption that evolution is true.

The paper’s highly unlikely scenarios of how evolution occurred are underwritten and mandated by the a priori assumption that (drumroll), evolution occurred.

In the same way NASA and ESA assume the Earth is a globe and not flat every time they launch a satellite into orbit. What were those dumb space scientists and engineers thinking using assumptions??

Which brings us back to Monte Python and the argument skit. There’s always another canard. After inappropriately using normal science as confirmatory evidence, and having the fallacy explained in no uncertain terms, the evolutionist effortlessly switches over to the next available fallacy: riding the coattails of science.

The analogy between the age-old Epicurean claims that the world spontaneously arose, and space flight, is of course absurd and pathetic. It reveals how silly is evolutionary thought. But like the Monte Python skit, evolutionists will always have another argument.

205 comments:

Darwinian 'science' in a nutshell:Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate - April 20, 2015Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/jon-wells-on-pop-science-boilerplate/

"Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. ... The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic."Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).

Does this mean that Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings, Barry Arrington, Joe Gallien, Louis (Mapou) Savain and you are closet evolutionists? I have seen arguments by each of you that have been soundly disproven, yet not only does your paradigm not change, but you don't even modify your ID theory to accommodate newly provided evidence. I say "newly provided" because none of the evidence is new, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it may be new to you.

I probably have 2000-3000 hrs of my own research into it. Up to PHD thesis level. In my opinion what we know is miniscule compared to what we need to know to arrive at some kind of theory. Same goes for cosmology. We just don't know. And frankly, we may never get there.

By far the most compelling research that I have read was the analysis of the DNA code itself. Compare DNA code to other codes and ID becomes a very strong emergent phenomenon. Now that was some compelling PHD thesis blew my socks off.

"I'll wager you've never taken any biology, paleontology, genetics, or any life sciences courses in your life and have no idea what the actual evidence for evolution is. Right?"

First. If studying the sciences provides such overwhelming evidence of evolution why do 10s of thousands of qualified scientists reject it?

Second. How does biology, genetics, paleontology, etc., when no presuppositions are applied, provide evidence for evolution?

cv5: "I probably have 2000-3000 hrs of my own research into it."

ghostrider: "So no formal training or experience, just what anti-science drivel you've read from ID-Creationist sites. I suspected as much."

This is purely an assumption on your part, ghostrider. cv5 could indeed have thousands of hours of personal study invested in the subject, and many if not the majority of those hours could have been spent studying the material produced by evolutionists. You assume, simply because he has concluded evolution is nonsense that all he has looked at is anti-evolution material. Why?

If studying the sciences provides such overwhelming evidence of evolution why do 10s of thousands of qualified scientists reject it?

A tiny percentage of scientists in the life science fields (<0.1%) reject the ToE because of their Fundamental religious beliefs. That doesn't magically negate all the positive evidence for evolution over deep time.

How does biology, genetics, paleontology, etc., when no presuppositions are applied, provide evidence for evolution.

We've been over this 100x Nic. Evolution provides a comprehensive, consilient, cross-corroborating explanation for ALL the evidence. Compare that with YEC which cherry picks individual pieces and never comes up with a coherent whole.

This is purely an assumption on your part, ghostrider.

No, I asked him directly and all he said was he had done was his own research. Saying there's no evidence for evolution is as stupid as claiming there's no evidence for heavier-than-air powered flight.

"A tiny percentage of scientists in the life science fields (<0.1%) reject the ToE because of their Fundamental religious beliefs. That doesn't magically negate all the positive evidence for evolution over deep time."

So you keep saying. However, if there are in the range of 7 million practising scientists in the world that 'tiny' percentage of 0.1% translates into 70,000 scientists who reject evolutionary thought. That may be a small percentage but it is not a small number.

"We've been over this 100x Nic. Evolution provides a comprehensive, consilient, cross-corroborating explanation for ALL the evidence."

Yes, we have been over this 100 times and you still are not catching onto the fact that is true only if you adhere to evolutionary thought to begin with. Those who do not adhere to evolutionary thought see no consilience or cross corroboration, they see contradictions. Evolution is change except when evolution is stasis. Evolution is driven by altruism, except when it's driven by selfishness. Evolution occurs slowly, except when it advances rapidly. Whatever happens is attributed to evolution, so if you a priori believe in evolution of course it is consilient and cross corroborating because it is the only explanation allowed.

"No, I asked him directly and all he said was he had done was his own research. Saying there's no evidence for evolution is as stupid as claiming there's no evidence for heavier-than-air powered flight."

Did you ask him what resources he had used or did you just assume he used only anti-evolution material. Sure there is evidence for evolution, if you presume evolution.

However, what you use as evidence for evolution is also used by creationists and adherents to intelligent design as evidence for their position. Everyone is working with the same evidence, ghostrider. :)

So you keep saying. However, if there are in the range of 7 million practising scientists in the world that 'tiny' percentage of 0.1% translates into 70,000 scientists who reject evolutionary thought. That may be a small percentage but it is not a small number.

The original number I sited came from a famous 1987 Newsweek poll of scientists that found 95% of all scientists and 99.9% (497,300 out of 480,000) of scientists in the earth and life science fields accepted evolution.

This latest 2015 Pew Research Center poll of AAAS professional scientists shows 98% of all scientists and 99% of scientists in the earth and life sciences accept evolution.

"The original number I sited came from a famous 1987 Newsweek poll of scientists that found 95% of all scientists and 99.9% (497,300 out of 480,000) of scientists in the earth and life science fields accepted evolution."

Really, be serious, that number is complete crap and every one knows it, and you should as well. If you want to say 90% I won't argue but 99% is pure BS.

"Sorry Nic but Creation believers are a very tiny fringe subset in the scientific community."

No need to feel sorry, I know my view is held by very few in the scientific field. The good part is numbers don't count when it comes to what is true or not true. Besides, you enjoy having me to kick around.:)

Really, be serious, that number is complete crap and every one knows it, and you should as well.

LOL! Just like all the scientific evidence for evolution. You don't want to accept it so it must be absolute crap. You just can't provide any reason why those poll results like the 2015 Pew poll should be rejected.

Besides, you enjoy having me to kick around.:)

Nah, just trying to show you the actual science my friend. If you see enough of it maybe someday a tiny bit will sink in. :)

"LOL! Just like all the scientific evidence for evolution. You don't want to accept it so it must be absolute crap. You just can't provide any reason why those poll results like the 2015 Pew poll should be rejected."

You wouldn't get 99.9% agreement that it was dark at midnight, let alone on such a question as evolution.

"Nah, just trying to show you the actual science my friend. If you see enough of it maybe someday a tiny bit will sink in. :)"

It was looking at the actual science which finished my belief in evolution. :)

You wouldn't get 99.9% agreement that it was dark at midnight, let alone on such a question as evolution.

Like I said - you can't refute the numbers of the Newsweek poll, or the more recent Pew poll. Just you don't like the results so are whining about how they must be phony. You do that with a lot of evidence your Creationist follies can't explain. :)

"Like I said - you can't refute the numbers of the Newsweek poll, or the more recent Pew poll. Just you don't like the results so are whining about how they must be phony. You do that with a lot of evidence your Creationist follies can't explain. :)"

I have an earned degree in Sociology. A very large part of the study of Sociology is the gathering, compilation and interpretation of statistical data. The first thing you learn is someone claiming a number of 99.9% is either incompetent, lying or both. The only thing he is not, is accurate. As such, you may choose whether Newsweek and Pew are lying or incompetent. Or whether they are guilty of both. What you cannot do is accept their claims as factual. Sorry. :)

Go ahead and write to Pew, tell them their poll results are either lying or inaccurate. Be sure to post their reply here along with your evidence they are guilty of incompetence or fraud. Something tells me merely claiming "I have a Sociology degree!" won't impress anyone or make your case.

Just curious - what do you think the results would be in a poll of professional scientists asked if the Earth was a globe and not flat? Think it would hit 99%?

It would let them know I understand statistics and the faults inherent in any system of polling. There are a lot of factors which go into preparing research such as opinion polls. Besides, I doubt very much it was Pew who publicly stated the numbers. It was more than likely the organization which commissioned the study and attached Pew's name.

"Just curious - what do you think the results would be in a poll of professional scientists asked if the Earth was a globe and not flat? Think it would hit 99%?"

Probably, but your margin of error would still exist. However, comparing the idea of a flat Earth with evolution is hardly analogous. That the Earth is a sphere can be empirically observed and demonstrated, common descent cannot. As such, there is much more room for a variety of opinions vis a vis common descent, which is not there for a flat Earth.

The margin of error in a poll such as this is at the very, very best 2.5%. As such any claim above 98% is bogus.

No Nic. 99% is still completely valid. All an error range of 2.5% means is the results fall between 96.5% and 100% with 99% being the most likely value.

Besides, I doubt very much it was Pew who publicly stated the numbers. It was more than likely the organization which commissioned the study and attached Pew's name.

(facepalm) Nic I provide the entire Pew poll report, all 48 pages of it. How can you hope to have a reasonable discussion when you won't even look at the documents provided?

That the Earth is a sphere can be empirically observed and demonstrated, common descent cannot. As such, there is much more room for a variety of opinions vis a vis common descent, which is not there for a flat Earth.

No Nic, there isn't. That's the part you just don't get. That evolution over deep time has occurred is as solidly established a scientific fact as a spherical Earth is. To the scientific community YECs pitching a 6K year Earth / literal Noah's Flood are just as loopy as the Flat Earthers. The YECs have a better PR organization but the science is just as bogus as flat earth proofs.

"That evolution over deep time has occurred is as solidly established a scientific fact as a spherical Earth is."

You're out of your flipping mind if you think the evidence for evolution via common descent is as scientifically supportable as a spherical Earth. Please, just try to show common descent is observable and demonstrable. And, no, the fossil record and bacterial adaptation is not sufficient evidence, not even remotely sufficient.

"To the scientific community YECs pitching a 6K year Earth / literal Noah's Flood are just as loopy as the Flat Earthers. The YECs have a better PR organization but the science is just as bogus as flat earth proofs."

Then you should be able to do more than call me as loopy as a flat-Earther, right? :) So far, you have not even come close to doing so.

The original number I sited came from a famous 1987 Newsweek poll of scientists that found 95% of all scientists and 99.9% (497,300 out of 480,000) of scientists in the earth and life science fields accepted evolution.

LoL! More cowardly equivocation. What type of evolution do they accept and why? They sure as hell cannot find a way to test unguided evolution so that would be a major problem for anyone trying to equivocate.

Then you should be able to do more than call me as loopy as a flat-Earther, right? :) So far, you have not even come close to doing so.

Nic there is far far too much evidence to every present on this teeny blog. As an example, Elsevier this week announced the publication of a new four volume set Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology. It's got hundreds of scientific papers from the world's top researchers.

Here's the Table of Contents. I had to break it into 3 parts because it exceed the blog post size limit.

History of Evolutionary Biology: Adaptation, history of; Darwin's finches, the Galapagos, and natural laboratories of evolution; Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution; Directed evolution, history of; Evolutionary biology, history of; Evolutionary genetics, history of; Industrial melanism, history of; Molecular evolution, history of; Origins of life, history of; Paleobiological revolution, history of; Schools of classification; Sociobiology, history of; Symbiogenesis, history of; Symbiosis, history of; Synthetic theory of evolution, history of; Waddington's epigenetic landscape, history of.

Life History Evolution: Age-specific survivorship and fertility, estimating;Aging: why do we age? Inheritance: from quantitative genetics to evolutionary stable strategies; Life histories, axes of variation in; Life history: age and stage structure; Life history evolution, human; Life history evolution, human impacts on; Life history evolution in guppies, experimental studies of; Life history evolution in island populations of birds; Life history evolution, plants; Life history evolution: the role of mating systems; Life history patterns; Life history: pike; Life history theory: basics;Life history trade-offs; Life history, what is;r- and K-selection in fluctuating environments, theory of.

You did not answer my question, how is this evidence for evolution if you do not presume evolution to begin with?

Sigh. We've been over this a dozen times. The idea of evolution proposed by Darwin started off as a hypothesis. Over time it was tested and amassed more and more and more positive evidence it achieved the status of scientific theory. There's no one piece of evidence that conclusively demonstrates evolution over deep time. It's the consilience of ALL the evidence taken as a whole.

Take one example; "diversification of red algae and the green plant lineage;..."

No Nic, i won't take one example. That's how scientifically ignorant creationists do things, demand each piece of evidence be examined separately. Science looks at the big picture formed by all the pieces of the puzzle, not just one piece at a time. I know that's been explained to you a dozen times too. If you don't get it by now you'll probably never get it.

Lol! You're dealing with the ghost of Eugenie Scott. "Facts are interesting, but they're not terribly exciting. Hypotheses help us build theory. Theories are the most important things in science. Theories mean explanation. But laws are broken, both in science as well as in.... euh... the real world. Laws are not as important as theories, because theories explain laws. Theories are most important! Then come laws, hypotheses, and facts. Facts don't explain anything."

GhostriderThe evidence so called you present under criticism fall to pieces for the most part. Not to mention the endless and I mean ceaselessly endless barrage of unrelenting assumptions. Two or three assumptions and you have nothing. Scientific? About as scientific as the preposterous drivel the cosmologistsconjured out of nothing.

LoL! You can't even tell us how to test the claim that natural selection and drift did it. No one can. That you can't see that is a huge problem for something claiming to be science reflects your ignorance.

Nic: "Take one example; "diversification of red algae and the green plant lineage;..."

ghostrider: "No Nic, i won't take one example. That's how scientifically ignorant creationists do things, demand each piece of evidence be examined separately. Science looks at the big picture formed by all the pieces of the puzzle, not just one piece at a time. I know that's been explained to you a dozen times too. If you don't get it by now you'll probably never get it."

First, I'll take that as ghostrider has not got a clue how the diversification of red algae is evidence for common descent which proves my point.

Second, if you want to take them all together that's fine but then you must still apply both questions to the whole. When you do so you will wind up with the same answers. Evolution is not the ONLY way to explain them and they do not support common descent without the presumption of evolution being true.

How's that? There are three bad assumptions accepted and acted upon regularly by evolutionists.

Pretty sucky. None of those three "assumptions" have anything to do with the fact evolution over deep time has occurred or the validity of the theory which explains the changes. The first two aren't assumptions at all but inferences derived from the empirical data. The last has to do with abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is what happens after we have imperfect self-replicators competing for resources.

"The point that Creationists cherry pick individual pieces of data and ignore the big picture? Tell us something we didn't already know."

If your theory is consilient, as you consistently like to claim, 'cherry picking' should not be a problem. Evolution should be able to answer each 'cherry pick' easily demonstrating the consilient nature of the theory.

Evolution is not a consilient explanation, very far from it in fact. Evolution is doing science with a rubber ruler. The whole edifice is supported by baseless assumptions, unsupportable extrapolations and the need to weave intricate just-so stories in a vain attempt to produce the illusion of consilience.

The empirical data does not support the idea of common descent, in fact it demonstrates the exact opposite. Canines always produce canines, mammals always produce mammals, etc, etc,, ad nauseum. The concept of common descent demands that at some point this pattern must deviate, yet it has never been observed to do so.

"ID-Creation is the position that assumes its conclusion without any evidence."

All empirical data shows complex and information rich systems stem only from intelligent sources. So, no, ID does not form its conclusion without evidence to support it. It has clear, observable, repeatable empirical support for those conclusions. Evolution has assumptions, extrapolation, wishful thinking and story telling.

If your theory is consilient, as you consistently like to claim, 'cherry picking' should not be a problem. Evolution should be able to answer each 'cherry pick' easily demonstrating the consilient nature of the theory.

Sure Nic. As soon as you can tell me the whole picture on a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle from just one piece.

Evolution is not a consilient explanation, very far from it in fact.

It is to science professionals, those who actually study the subject.

The empirical data does not support the idea of common descent, in fact it demonstrates the exact opposite. Canines always produce canines, mammals always produce mammals, etc, etc,, ad nauseum.

Sorry Nic but canines didn't exist before about 40 MYA. Before that time there were the family Miacidae that evolved into the Carnivoria which then split into canines, felines, ursines (bears) and pinnipeds (seals)

Have humans ever seen anything as complex, or should i say simple as a slingshot being made without design? Then that means that in all oiur experience these things that look like they were designed were really designed.

ghostrider: "It has been demonstrated that amazingly complex systems can be produce through simple iterative processes using feedback and inheritance."

Nic: "Point me to the evidence to support this, please. :)"

ghostrider: "Introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms"

This is your evidence showing evolution, via natural unguided and unintelligent processes, can form amazingly complex systems; an intelligently designed and guided computer algorithm?

How does an intelligently designed computer algorithm demonstrate unguided, unintelligent, mindless and goalless evolutionary processes? By its very nature a computer program is goal oriented and intelligently programmed to function in a particular manner. Both these factors completely undermine an evolutionary algorithm's ability to demonstrate a goalless and unintelligent process. One would think that fact would be woefully obvious, but apparently not to evolutionists. :)

Really, ghsotrider, if that is all you've got you're in serious trouble.

We have never actually seen that complex stuff evolve. We don't know that organisms evolved. Your asking me to accept something as fact when it hasn't even been demonstrated that it is possible, based on our experience making things. Are you sure it's the creationists who are ignoring the "big picture?"

Y'know, there are no computer fossil dating back more than a hundred years or so. There are no car fossils dating back more than a ~150 years. But, to the best of my knowledge cars and computers were designed. So dog might have been designed, too.

We've never seen plate tectonics form a whole mountain either. Here's the thing nat - science doesn't have to see events happen in real time to understand how they occurred. We can do that by examining the evidence the event leaves behind.

I know you're too slow to get that but maybe some Creationist somewhere has an IQ over 50.

"You asked how simple iterative processes can form complex results. The tutorial on EAs explains how."

No, ghostrider, they do not, not even close. Evolution by its very definition and nature is an unguided process with no end results in mind. Therefore a guided process, which is intelligently designed and has goals in mind cannot be used to explain how a process with no intelligent input or any specific goals in mind has functioned over eons of time. That is painfully obvious to anyone with even the slightest objective outlook.

Unfortunately you have already imbibed in copious amounts of evolutionary kool-aid and you simply cannot see what is so strikingly obvious to all except the most ardent evolutionist.

"It doesn't surprise me even a little that you're not interested in learning or bettering yourself."

As I have said several times already, I used to think like you do, it was when I actually began to look objectively at the evidence that I rejected evolution for the nonsensical fairy tale it is. :)

"BTW Nic, I see you sure shut up quickly on your red algae rant when the evidence was presented. No surprises there either."

Oh, you mean the paper which, as is usual with evolutionary papers, asserted evolution to be true in the opening paragraph and then went on to show why it is true. Is that the evidence you mean?

It was replete with the usual evolutionary rhetoric about how things 'apparently' occurred or 'possibly could have' occurred, or we can 'infer' such and such happened.

Sorry, my friend, that is not even close to evidence. It is nothing more than one long assertion as to how red algae diversification is the result of evolution. It provided not one iota of demonstrable evidence to support any of its claims. In other words, it was just your typical evolutionary story telling designed to bolster morale among the faithful.

I have no problem with the idea of significant diversification among red algae as that fits right in with the views of both ID and creationism. I only take issue with the idea that such diversification is somehow evidence for common descent. This argument is the plant equivalent of the bacteria argument. Red algae remaining algae is hardly evidence of common descent in the same way bacteria remaining bacteria is not an argument for common descent.

You need a new writer Nic. Constantly regurgitating the same tired Creationist excuses is too boring. Like the stupidity "a computer model of a natural process proves the natural process was designed". And the old favorite "the paper assumes evolution". You bitched about red algae being just one piece of the huge puzzle and when I showed you how it fit in you went right back to whining it didn't show the whole puzzle picture.

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn. I'll keep pointing out the blatant lies about science that get posted on this blog but that's about it.

"Like the stupidity "a computer model of a natural process proves the natural process was designed"."

That is not what I said, you're simply erecting a straw man because you cannot counter the argument.

Does a designed evolutionary algorithm prove the case for intelligent design? No, but what it does do is clearly illustrate the need for intelligence to simply imitate evolutionary processes.

So, one is left with an obvious question. If intelligence is required to simply imitate evolutionary processes, why would one suppose the actual process could possibly function without intelligence?

"when I showed you how it fit in you went right back to whining it didn't show the whole puzzle picture."

You didn't do anything of the sort. All your red algae argument showed was red algae diversified, nothing more. All 'IDiots', as you like to call them, and creationists accept diversification within organisms. Diversification in and of itself does nothing to support the concept of common descent. It only supports the concept of diversification.

"I'm not going to waste any more time trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn."

It's rather arrogant of you to assume I am so poorly educated that I require you to teach me. I managed to get through six years of university before you came along. How do you suppose I managed that without your guidance? :)

See, it's like this. It hasn't been demonstrated that it is even possible to make all this stuff that looks designed without design. All our experience making things indicates that it isn't possible. That is the big picture when it comes to looking at designed stuff. And it hasn't been demonstrated that organisms evolved via Darwinism, or that it is even possible. So taking a big picture look, I'd say that design is indicated.

So, one is left with an obvious question. If intelligence is required to simply imitate evolutionary processes, why would one suppose the actual process could possibly function without intelligence?

Nic do you have brain damage? The intelligence in a simulation all goes into writing the wrapper software, NOT into the physical process being simulated. NASA uses gravity simulation software to plot the trajectories of space probes. Do you really think that's evidence gravity needs intelligent inputs to work?

It's rather arrogant of you to assume I am so poorly educated that I require you to teach me

As Will Rogers once noted, "all people are ignorant, just in different subjects". I'm pretty ignorant of Sociology and could learn the details from you. You're pretty ignorant in evolutionary biology and could learn the details from me IF you were interested in learning. But alas you're not.

"Nic do you have brain damage? The intelligence in a simulation all goes into writing the wrapper software, NOT into the physical process being simulated. NASA uses gravity simulation software to plot the trajectories of space probes. Do you really think that's evidence gravity needs intelligent inputs to work?"

The same question could be asked of you.:)Is anyone claiming gravity is responsible for the origin of life and its evolution over 4.5 billion years? The two are not at all analogous.

"You're pretty ignorant in evolutionary biology and could learn the details from me IF you were interested in learning. But alas you're not."

Yeah, I guess I am, but I am bright enough to understand evolution is irrelevant to biology and that biology has functioned and will continue to function without the need of evolutionary theory. I am also bright enough to see deign is a much better explanation of what we witness in biology than is a blind purposeless process such as evolution.

Is anyone claiming gravity is responsible for the origin of life and its evolution over 4.5 billion years? The two are not at all analogous.

ZOOM! Look at those goalposts fly. I don't blame you for trying to change the subject after your last dumb comment, that intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated requires intelligence.

I am bright enough to understand evolution is irrelevant to biology and that biology has functioned and will continue to function without the need of evolutionary theory.

Dunning Kruger at work. Gravity works without the theory of gravity too. Germs make people sick without the germ theory of disease. The continents still move without the theory of plate tectonics. The reason scientific theories are formulated are to help us understand. Understand the mechanisms, understand the past, understand and be better prepared for what might happen in the future.

I am also bright enough to see deign is a much better explanation of what we witness in biology than is a blind purposeless process such as evolution.

"ZOOM! Look at those goalposts fly. I don't blame you for trying to change the subject after your last dumb comment, that intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated requires intelligence."

The only one who thinks the goal posts are moving is the one who is not paying attention to the game. ;)

No, not all intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated must be intelligent, but some certainly do and therein lay the difference.

"Dunning Kruger at work. Gravity works without the theory of gravity too."

Nice try, but no cigar. Evolutionists are the ones who claim biology is meaningless without evolution, not me.Gravity still has plenty of meaning with out the theory of gravity as do plate tectonics and their accompanying theories. And that, my friend, is the point. Evolution is simply a philosophy which attempts to explain biology, and not successfully at that, not biology itself.

"More ignorance based bravado completely unsupported by any facts."

It's supported by the fact you're unable to provide any type of convincing evidence, nor is the scientific community as a whole. That could be why evolutionary theory is being re-assessed even by those who adhere to it.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide an example of something that has characteristics that we know form experience to be characteristics of designed things only that was not designed? Please don't say life since we don't know that life wasn't designed. I'd settle for something like a tool, a machine, a vehicle. And please don't site something that was designed that looks like it wasn't. We are talking about things that look designed.

"Which ones do and most importantly how did you objectively make the determination?"

I would make the determination based on observation. Playing a game of chess is a process which requires intelligence. As such, if you're going to program a simulated chess game you will need to accept the fact intelligence is part of that process. If you do not, your programming will be pointless, if not impossible.

"Why would biology be meaningless and not the other naturally occurring phenomena?"

Ask the people who love to quote Dobzhanky's nonsensical claim.

"Possibly not to you but that's because you've already decided a priori to reject all evidence. Why you think that affects scientifically verified reality is the mystery."

As I have already told you several times, I used to adhere to evolutionary thought, so, obviously I did not a priori reject all the evidence. I only came to reject it when I started to look at it objectively. Why is that so hard to understand?

Weaseling non-answer noted. We're talking about observed natural processes - gravity, erosion, tectonic movement, evolution, electrical discharges, formation of hurricanes, etc. I know you claim evolution requires intelligence but I want to know how you objectively came to that conclusion. You also implied there was more than one. What other observed natural processes require intelligence to operate?

Ask the people who love to quote Dobzhanky's nonsensical claim.

Dobzhanky didn't say biology is meaningless. He said nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. That's a very different thing than your silly claim.

I only came to reject it when I started to look at it objectively. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because I know you don't have the scientific background to objectively assess the evidence. You assess solely based on your religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that as your personal philosophy but don't pretend it's in any way based on science.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide an example of something that has characteristics that we know form experience to be characteristics of designed things only that was not designed

What are the characteristics of designed things only? How did you determine only design can produce them? We know naturally occurring processes can produce complex features and IC structures so it can't be them. What else do you have to offer?

It's funny how evolutionists always refer to 'natural processes' as if there is no intelligence involved in the workings of nature. Do you really believe nature just popped into existence all on its own?

The laws which govern nature display all the hallmarks of intelligence to any objective mind, but apparently not to evolutionists who seem to believe those laws are the force which drives nature, when in reality they are the rules which govern its actions. Rules and laws very clearly and strongly imply an intelligent source to explain their existence. Therefore, all of nature and the actions thereof are the result of intelligence. That, ghostrider, is the fundamental difference in our outlook of life.

"He said nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

I agree he did not say biology was meaningless without evolution, but his comment that nothing makes sense in biology without evolution is completely absurd. Many Christians who believe in creation are practicing biologists and do just fine without ever appealing to evolution.

It is the same with genetics, physics or any other field of science you wish too mention. None of these scientists need appeal to evolution to carry out their work. As such , the claim that an evolutionary mindset is necessary to make sense of biology, or any other field of research, is palpable nonsense.

"Nothing wrong with that as your personal philosophy but don't pretend it's in any way based on science."

All science and all scientists are philosophical in nature, including you. :) Science cannot function outside a philosophical framework.

The laws which govern nature display all the hallmarks of intelligence to any objective mind, but apparently not to evolutionists who seem to believe those laws are the force which drives nature, when in reality they are the rules which govern its actions. Rules and laws very clearly and strongly imply an intelligent source to explain their existence. Therefore, all of nature and the actions thereof are the result of intelligence. That, ghostrider, is the fundamental difference in our outlook of life.

Congratulations on just directly contradicting yourself. Above you said some natural processes don't require intelligence to work, remember?

Nic above: "not all intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated must be intelligent"

Now you say all do require intelligence. Let me know when you finally make up your mind. :)

I agree he did not say biology was meaningless without evolution,

So when you claimed evolutionists say biology is meaningless you were wrong. Got it.

None of these scientists need appeal to evolution to carry out their work

But to fully understand what they are doing, yes they do need the evolution paradigm. You really think paleontologists say "oh look, a fossil. I don't care about the history of it or its ancestors, I'll just dig it up."

Science cannot function outside a philosophical framework.

Try adopting a philosophy that says gravity isn't important, then jump off a tall building. See if the science cannot work. Have a friend video record it for the evening news. :)

"Above you said some natural processes don't require intelligence to work, remember?"

No, I don't remember that. What I remember saying is that not all simulations require intelligence in that which they are simulating. Which is exactly what the following quote says.

"Nic above: "not all intelligently produced simulations mean the process being simulated must be intelligent"

Nic: "None of these scientists need appeal to evolution to carry out their work."

ghostrider: "But to fully understand what they are doing, yes they do need the evolution paradigm."

No, they do not. If they don't accept the concept of evolution why would they refer to it for guidance? It's only because you cannot get your head around the idea evolution may be false and therefore you cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly function without it. Well, my friend, they can and they do.

"Try adopting a philosophy that says gravity isn't important, then jump off a tall building."

One can hold to a philosophy which is false. That would be the case with the individual jumping off the building expecting to float. Whether his philosophy is valid or invalid is irrelevant to the fact he holds to a philosophy. Get it? :)

Yes, you can prove a negative, it is done all the time. You can prove there are no square circles or married bachelors. By doing so you are proving a negative.

"The best we can do is offer examples where there is no evidence of external design. The covers all biological life."

How is all biological life an example for which there is no evidence for external design? What does it lack that would be considered evidence for design? Perhaps a serial number or a production date? How about an 'inspected by #8' sticker? What would biological life need to exhibit to be seen as having evidence of external design, ghostrider?

OK then, give me an example of an object you can prove with 100% certainty is not designed.

What would biological life need to exhibit to be seen as having evidence of external design, ghostrider?

Same as the last time you made the request. Things like evidence for a mechanism of physical manufacture (i.e tools, dies, jigs used in assembly, tool marks), a timeline of the production, and and of course the identity of the designer / manufacturer.

You have any of those things?

In the Creationist case you also need a good explanation for the fossil and genetic records, and why the Designer made all species to look exactly like they had evolved over deep time.

"OK then, give me an example of an object you can prove with 100% certainty is not designed."

Pardon me, did I say you could prove every negative or that you could prove a negative?

"Same as the last time you made the request. Things like evidence for a mechanism of physical manufacture (i.e tools, dies, jigs used in assembly, tool marks), a timeline of the production, and and of course the identity of the designer / manufacturer."

Why would those be necessary to prove design? Those would be indicators of manufacturing as we understand and practice it. Does that mean all 'manufacturing' must be done in that manner? No, that is just your materialistic thinking showing through. :)

Instead, think of the final line of Bruce Springsteen's song Jesus Was An Only Son; "remember the soul of the universe who willed a world and it appeared."

As for the identity of a designer, why is that necessary to perceive design? The design and the designer are not synonymous.

You may insist these things are necessary but that does not dictate their necessity for anyone but you.

"the Designer made all species to look exactly like they had evolved over deep time."

He did? Why do you say that? What exactly is it that makes them look like they evolved over deep time? And how would you know the difference? To you everything has evolved over deep time, so you have no idea what things would look like if they had not evolved. You may speculate how you think they should look but it would just that, speculation.

Instead, think of the final line of Bruce Springsteen's song Jesus Was An Only Son; "remember the soul of the universe who willed a world and it appeared."

Then show your evidence species were "willed" into existence.

You may insist these things are necessary but that does not dictate their necessity for anyone but you.

Me and the rest of the scientific community.

He did? Why do you say that? What exactly is it that makes them look like they evolved over deep time?

The matching nested branching pattern in the fossil and genetic records. An omnipotent designer could mix and match any combination of traits and timelines and produce an unlimited number of different patterns. Evolution through common descent can only produce one very distinct pattern, and that's the pattern we see.

ghostrider....Nobody has the slightest idea of what gravity is. The best theory I have heard is polarization of the ZPE field.

I have come across theories that huniliate plate tectonics. Theories postulating mountain building in WEEKS that were far more substantive than the commonplace junk science that I find simply pathetic by comparison.

Theories that point out how migration is by far the most potent and exceedingly rapid cause of extinction.

BTW 90% of the content you post belongs on '60's era textbooks now debunked. Yet the echoes linger on in your posts.

So tell me....how is it that in the Hubble deep, deeper and super deep field photos, the galaxies look practically identical to the nearby groups? They actually propose that we are looking 13-14 billion years back in time. These observations of course render the popular ancient universe theories impotent and quite ridiculous if not embarrassing. Prima facie evidence wiping out the big bangers. Unless of course they simply ignore it and soldier on lol.

ghostrider....Nobody has the slightest idea of what gravity is. The best theory I have heard is polarization of the ZPE field.

I have come across theories that huniliate plate tectonics. Theories postulating mountain building in WEEKS that were far more substantive than the commonplace junk science that I find simply pathetic by comparison.

Theories that point out how migration is by far the most potent and exceedingly rapid cause of extinction.

BTW 90% of the content you post belongs on '60's era textbooks now debunked. Yet the echoes linger on in your posts.

So tell me....how is it that in the Hubble deep, deeper and super deep field photos, the galaxies look practically identical to the nearby groups? They actually propose that we are looking 13-14 billion years back in time. These observations of course render the popular ancient universe theories impotent and quite ridiculous if not embarrassing. Prima facie evidence wiping out the big bangers. Unless of course they simply ignore it and soldier on lol.

I have come across theories that huniliate plate tectonics. Theories postulating mountain building in WEEKS that were far more substantive than the commonplace junk science that I find simply pathetic by comparison.

I'm sure you've found lots of woo on YouTube that you swallowed uncritically. Flat Earth? Homeopathic medicine? Magic crystals? Your basic scientific ignorance is curable at any decent community college with a science department. Your Dunning-Kruger attitude however you'll have to fix yourself.

I also didn't say they were 'willed' into existence. It's a possibility, but I did not say they were. As for my evidence in that regard it's much the same as yours when it comes to the existence of a single common ancestor for all living organisms we see today and in the past, faith.

Nic: "You may insist these things are necessary but that does not dictate their necessity for anyone but you."

ghostrider: "Me and the rest of the scientific community."

I know this will come as a shock to you but you and the rest of the scientific community do not amount to a significant number in the overall scheme of things. And, as I have pointed out before, the entire scientific community is not on your side. Please, no more about 99.9% being in agreement with you.

"An omnipotent designer could mix and match any combination of traits and timelines and produce an unlimited number of different patterns."

Yes, he could, but he is not required to do so. He could also do things exactly the way we see them. That's the beauty of being omnipotent. It certainly is not up to you to decide how he should have done things.

"Evolution through common descent can only produce one very distinct pattern, and that's the pattern we see."

You're oh so right, evolution is woefully limited. However, God is not. So, because we see the pattern to which evolution would be limited, it does not mean evolution is the origin of that pattern. Logic is a wonderful tool. :)

It probably should also be obvious that whatever pattern was seen, that would be the pattern claimed by evolution.

ghostriderany cogent rebuttals to my Hubble question would be appreciated. And to the mountain building theory,this was fielded by a legitimate credentialed PHD MIT engineer with a masters degree in geology as I recall.And he crunched the numbers. Did he ever.A robust theory with a plethora of correct predictions. Weeks buddy. Amazing stuff. Not saying he's 100% on all counts but IMO a good chunk of what he proposes is quite likely. Walt Brown is the name. And yes he is a Christian.

Common descent via gradual evolution cannot produce a nesting pattern. That is due to the nature of transitional forms which would blur any and all lines of distinction making it almost impossible to classify organisms if you had to classify them all.

Unguided evolution cannot account for genetics nor the fossil record so that would also be a problem.

Wow, Timmy's cowardly equivocation and ignorance knows no bounds. The alleged origin of red algae and chloroplasts has nothing to say about natural selection and drift. It is all "It looks like it evolved to me".

O.M.G. Wally "wonderpants" Brown and his wacky hydroplate idea?? The senile Creationist nutter who claims the continents mover 3000 miles in a single day?? The one who claims the asteroids were all pieces of earth blasted off by the "fountains of the deep"?? The goofball whose claims violate practically all the known laws of physics??

Yes, he could, but he is not required to do so. He could also do things exactly the way we see them. That's the beauty of being omnipotent.

It's also why ID-Creationism isn't scientific and why it is worthless as an explanation. ID-Creationism can never be falsified because any conceivable piece of evidence can be hand-waved away as "the omnipotent designer did it that was just because!".

There are lots of things that if found would have falsified ToE. ID-Creationism is unfalsifiable.

It's also why ID-Creationism isn't scientific and why it is worthless as an explanation.

ID-Creationism only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant. And here you are, again.

ID can be tested- it makes testable claims. OTOH evolutionism doesn't make testable claims. Even Darwin said one needs to prove a negative to falsify it.

That ID makes testable claims means it can be falsified. To falsify ID all one needs to do is demonstrate natural selection and drift are up to the task at hand. So ID is both testable and falsifiable. And Timmy Horton is still an ignorant coward.

It's like this. When we make things we see that energy is neither created nor destroyed. We conclude that energy can't be created or destroyed. I think it is called induction. Also, when we make things, we see that we can't get certain characteristics like IC, highly specified complexity, etc, without design. Therefore we can conclude via induction, that these characteristics can't be created without design. I don't know where proving a negative comes in.

Oh, and by the way, if organism evolved in small increments, I would not expect to see a discrete nested branching hierarchy, but rather a smooth continuum. That's what all those incremental transitions would make, a smooth continuum. And one more thing. IT looks like the Creator did do a lot of mixing and of organisms at the genetic level. Lots of conflicting signals, bushed instead of trees, horizontal gene transfer, incomplete gene sorting, etc, at the genetic level. So you got your mixing and matching.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].

We have empirical evidence IC structures can be created without conscious design. Look at any natural stone arch as a good example.

What stone arch? The stone arches made up of ONE component?

There you go, demanding that science prove a negative again.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.- Dr Behe

AND to falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection, drift and any other materialistic process is up to the task at hand, namely producing living organisms.

FAIL again Joke. That wouldn't do it because a sufficiently powerful Designer could manipulate natural processes to look just like evolution and produce a desired result. Behe's stupid example of falsification fails the same way.

Unbelieveable- Science Timmy. Learn about it. Also ID makes the claim that natural selection, drift and other materialistic processes are not up to the task. That is why you evoTARDs have been trying as hard as you can to show that those processes can produce IC.

But thanks you for proving that you are a scientifically illiterate troll.

ID is falsifiable, IDists and science have said how to do so. And all Timmy can do is whine like a little ignorant cry-baby.

AND Timmy says that proving a negative isn't the way to do science and yet his position demands we do so.

Moron Timmy strikes again- ID doesn't require an omnipotent supernatural entity and ID is about the DESIGN and not the designer. And by showing that mother nature is all that is required you slice off the designer requirement.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin 1859, pg. 175].

"And so arguing evolution with an evolutionist is a lot like the Monty Python argument skit. They will pull out all manner of canards, misdirections, and fallacies, depending on their mood at the moment."

"But not all negatives as you already admitted. How could science prove it's impossible for supernatural beings to exist?"

The only test as to whether something is or is not falsifiable is whether there is a reasonable scenario in which that thing could be falsified. Obviously there is not a requirement that it must be falsified, as something which is fundamentally true cannot be falsified.

The fact that science cannot prove God does not exist only goes to demonstrate the limitations of science and does nothing to lend evidence to the argument against the existence of God.

The arch consists of stones that were cemented into one unit. It functions as one unit. Still not complex. Sorry. Oh, and complex usually means, in this context, lots of different things. The arch just has stones. That's different.

And I keep on asking you for something as complex as a slingshot that we know wasn't designed because you assert that it is possible despite the fact that it has never been observed. I'm requesting that you provide evidence that it is possible. That means we need something we know was not designed, or it doesn't count as evidence that such a thing is possible.

And if ID was not falsified, how can you call anyone who believes in it all the names you call them? Maybe it is true, and they are correct?

It isn't complex since it funvtiond as just one unit. Movrover complex things have lots of different things. The things in the arch are all rocks. Two reasons why it isn't complex unlike organisms that are or slingshots

And if you are trying to prove that thongs that looked don't need to be designed, don't you have to provide something that was definitely not designed?

And your missing the point. Even if is has no evidence, if it hasn't been falsified because it can't be falsified why do you have such a problem with people believing it? Why do you get personal? Why do you take it personally if they might be right?

The bacreisl flagellum had many different poeces that do differvent things. The function depends on those different things the stones in the arch are all the same functionally and the arch can function without all those stones as a single unit ad well. That's different CV it isn't complex

ghostriderflattery will get you nowhere. Brown's theories have correctly predicted certain latter observations. I am not saying he is on the money on all counts but certainly intriguing. Still awaiting your rebuttal to my inquiries.

The bacterial flagellum has many different pieces that do different things. The function depends on those different things. The stones in the arch are all the same functionally and the arch can function without all those stones as a single unit as well. That's different. It isn't complex

LOL! Brown is such an out-to-lunch nutter even other YEC organizations like AIG and ICR won't touch him. His scenarios read like something out of a drug induced bad dream. Pretty much everything he suggests directly violates multiple laws of physics. But feel free to present his wing-nuttery here if you like. It would be highly amusing.

Reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strengths. carefully read the comment to which Cornelius was responding to. I realize that some of the words are more than one syllable, but if you sound them out slowly, I have faith that you will be able to understand them.

There is a bigger issue of how humans correct themselves.Is "science' folks any different? NO!Science is about suring up conclusions.Yet it still is a human(tailless primate for some) doing the suring.my question to evos and creos is always about the essence of the evidence.with creationists and evolutionists I hit a wall about what they think biological scientific evidence is?For evolution evidence claims they use non biological evidences. They use comparative anatomy and genetics., biogeography, fossils(geology) etc I struggle to wrestle them down that these are not bio sci evidences.They are not evidence for biological processes being asserted. they are biological data points being joined to gether by lines of reasoning employing other subjects.Fossils have never made a evidence claim for or against(Sorry ID brothers) evolutionary processes for proving biological origins.

There is a great issue of what the essence of proof is.I suspect everyone is not innocent.I guess that means me too but its invisible to me.

Darwinist arguments have not been "holding water" since the day the doomed theory was first announced. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. Everyone knows it. Even Darwinists know it deep down in their dark, tiny little hearts.

Evolution is already immortal and completely without the help of these gentleman. It will continue to be immortal along with panspermia, homeopathy, phrenology, the multiverse and other nonsensical ideas which wound up on the ash heap of scientific foolishness. :)

Well ten year olds know more than you ever will. Too bad not even working evolutionary biologists will be able to counter what ID brings forward as evidenced by the lack of countering taking place now.

Well, most of us are. The way some others act leads me to wonder at times. Why is it so hard for some to simply exchange ideas and beliefs and do so in a polite and respectful manner? I have never understood the need to hurl an insult at every opportunity.

LOL. You know when the evotards are feeling the pain. It's when they start crying for their mommies. What a bunch of spineless maggots you dirt worshippers are. You want to censor the opinions of others while being free to say whatever you want. You're so lucky this blog is not mine. I would ban every single one of you gutless imbeciles.

GhostriderWhat you propose as science just isn't. Under scrutiny eevolution simply fails. A childish notion that is supposed to be a theory of everything. Self conflicting to such an absurd extent you would think that no self-respecting scientist would fly under that that canard. I would reconsider your position as you are running out of time quite frankly. The Truth is on display for all to see. Nobody has any excuse and apparently will not be excused. Sounds harsh I know.

What you propose as science just isn't. Under scrutiny eevolution simply fails.

So Creationists are fond of claiming. Yet when I look around I see thousands of colleges, universities, research labs, natural history museums, and millions of professional scientists still using the paradigm successfully.

Maybe if you stomp your feet and hold your breath while typing these fact-free rants all those scientists will finally listen to your Creationist "wisdom."

Yet when I look around I see thousands of colleges, universities, research labs, natural history museums, and millions of professional scientists still using the paradigm successfully.

Some quotes from those "professional scientists"

Richard Lewontin of Harvard"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."Peter J. Bowler"We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."

Prof Mano Singham Writing about the students trust in him. "... I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.

The second dishonest quote-mine is from a review here of paleontologist Henry Gee's book In Search Of Deep Time. The out-of-context passage was describing old views of cladistics, not stating modern scientific views.

The third has nothing to do with evolution. It's a Physics professor explaining how he teaches the basics to freshman.

All three dishonest mined quotes were regurgitated from the ICR site here.

With all due respect, ghostrider, you're just simply wrong here. The Lewontin quote is presented in context.

As for the Henry Gee quote I present below the entire paragraph from which the quote was taken. It is from a an article found in American Scientist in 2000. It clearly demonstrates the quote provided by Dale Goorskey is completely within context.

"The consequence of all this, the cladists insist, is that all the old paraphernalia of evolutionary explanations must be dismissed as unscientific speculation. All we can do is assess degrees of relationship. We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions. They reflect our modern ideas about the purposes of adaptive structures and about the progressive trend we think we see in the history of life up to humankind. They cannot be part of science because they cannot be tested against the fossil record. This is not an anti-evolution diatribe because cladism depends on the notion of common ancestry, and Gee admits that Darwin's theory can be applied in the modern world where we can actually see ecological relationships at work. But cladism places severe restrictions on what kind of questions can be asked about the distant past, in the cause of raising paleontology to the ranks of a hard science." American Scientist March-April, 2000.

"The third has nothing to do with evolution. It's a Physics professor explaining how he teaches the basics to freshman."

Perhaps it does have nothing to do with evolution per se, but it is revealing in that it shows the attitude of some professors in some institutions. It shows their intent is not to encourage objective investigative thought in their students but rather to bend the students to their way of thinking. I think you will agree, that is not a good method of teaching.